Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was Mary Sinless?
The Aristophrenium ^ | 12/05/2010 | " Fisher"

Posted on 12/05/2010 6:14:57 PM PST by RnMomof7

............The Historical Evidence

The Roman Catholic Church claims that this doctrine, like all of their other distinctive doctrines, has the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” (contra unanimen consensum Patrum).[10] They argue that what they teach concerning the Immaculate Conception has been the historic belief of the Christian Church since the very beginning. As Ineffabilis Deus puts it,

The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God… has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin… and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts.[11]

However, the student of church history will quickly discover that this is not the case. The earliest traces of this doctrine appear in the middle ages when Marian piety was at its bloom. Even at this time, however, the acceptance of the doctrine was far from universal. Both Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux rejected the immaculate conception. The Franciscans (who affirmed the doctrine) and the Dominicans (who denied it, and of whom Aquinas was one) argued bitterly over whether this doctrine should be accepted, with the result that the pope at the time had to rule that both options were acceptable and neither side could accuse the other of heresy (ironic that several centuries later, denying this doctrine now results in an anathema from Rome).

When we go further back to the days of the early church, however, the evidence becomes even more glaring. For example, the third century church father Origen of Alexandria taught in his treatise Against Celsus (3:62 and 4:40) that that the words of Genesis 3:16 applies to every woman without exception. He did not exempt Mary from this. As church historian and patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly points out,

Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2.35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.”[12]

Also, it must be noted that it has been often pointed out that Jesus’ rebuke of Mary in the wedding of Cana (John 2:1-12) demonstrates that she is in no wise perfect or sinless. Mark Shea scoffs at this idea that Mary is “sinfully pushing him [Jesus] to do theatrical wonders in John 2,” arguing that “there is no reason to think [this] is true.”[13] However, if we turn to the writings of the early church fathers, we see that this is precisely how they interpreted Mary’s actions and Jesus’ subsequent rebuke of her. In John Chrysostom’s twenty-first homily on the gospel of John (where he exegetes the wedding of Cana), he writes,

For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere “Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?” (Matt. xii.48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occasion… He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.[14]

Now why on earth would Jesus care for the salvation of Mary’s soul at this point in time if she was already “preventatively” saved through having been immaculately conceived, as was claimed earlier? That does not make any sense, whatsoever. Likewise, Theodoret of Cyrus agrees with John Chrysostom in saying that the Lord Jesus rebuked Mary during the wedding at Cana. In chapter two of his Dialogues, he writes,

If then He was made flesh, not by mutation, but by taking flesh, and both the former and the latter qualities are appropriate to Him as to God made flesh, as you said a moment ago, then the natures were not confounded, but remained unimpaired. And as long as we hold thus we shall perceive too the harmony of the Evangelists, for while the one proclaims the divine attributes of the one only begotten—the Lord Christ—the other sets forth His human qualities. So too Christ our Lord Himself teaches us, at one time calling Himself Son of God and at another Son of man: at one time He gives honour to His Mother as to her that gave Him birth [Luke 2:52]; at another He rebukes her as her Lord [John 2:4].[15] And then there is Augustine of Hippo, whom many Roman Catholic apologists attempt to appeal to for their belief in the immaculate conception. They like to quote a portion of chapter 42 of his treatise, On Nature and Grace, where Augustine states,

We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.[16]

However, those who quote this passage miss the point of what Augustine is trying to communicate. He was trying to refute the Pelagian heretics (who were the ones who were claiming that Mary—among other biblical characters—were sinless, since they denied the depravity of man). The article explaining Augustine’s view of Mary on Allan Fitzgerald’s Augustine Through the Ages helps clear up misconceptions regarding this passage:

His [Augustine's] position must be understood in the context of the Pelagian controversy. Pelagius himself had already admitted that Mary, like the other just women of the Old testament, was spared from any sin. Augustine never concedes that Mary was sinless but prefers to dismiss the question… Since medieval times this passage [from Nature and Grace] has sometimes been invoked to ground Augustine’s presumed acceptance of the doctrine of the immaculate conception. It is clear nonetheless that, given the various theories regarding the transmission of original sin current in his time, Augustine in that passage would not have meant to imply Mary’s immunity from it.[17]

This same article then goes on to demonstrate that Augustine did in fact believe that Mary received the stain of original sin from her parents:

His understanding of concupiscence as an integral part of all marital relations made it difficult, if not impossible, to accept that she herself was conceived immaculately. He… specifies in [Contra Julianum opus imperfectum 5.15.52]… that the body of Mary “although it came from this [concupiscence], nevertheless did not transmit it for she did not conceive in this way.” Lastly, De Genesi ad litteram 10.18.32 asserts: “And what more undefiled than the womb of the Virgin, whose flesh, although it came from procreation tainted by sin, nevertheless did not conceive from that source.”[18]

As can be seen here, these and many other early church fathers[19] did not regard Mary as being sinless or immaculately conceived. It is quite clear that the annals of church history testify that Rome cannot claim that this belief is based upon the “unanimous consent of the fathers,” since the belief that Mary was sinless started out among Pelagian heretics during the fifth century and did not become an acceptable belief until at least the beginning of the middle ages.

Conclusion

As has been demonstrated here, neither scripture nor church history support the contention of the Roman Catholic Church that Mary was sinless by virtue of having been immaculately conceived. In fact, Rome did not even regard this as an essential part of the faith until the middle of the nineteenth century. This should cause readers to pause and question why on earth Rome would anathematize Christians for disbelieving in a doctrine that was absent from the early church (unless one wants to side with the fifth century Pelagians) and was considered even by Rome to be essential for salvation until a century and a half ago. Because Rome said so? But their reasons for accepting this doctrine in the first place are so demonstrably wrong. After all, they claim that this was held as divinely revealed from the very beginning, even though four and a half centuries’ worth of patristic literature proves otherwise. This ought to be enough to cast doubt not only on Rome’s claims regarding Mariology, but their claims to authority on matters of faith and morals in general.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Ecumenism; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholicbashing; idolatry; marianobsession; mary; worship
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,581-2,6002,601-2,6202,621-2,640 ... 3,401-3,413 next last
To: Dr. Eckleburg; 1000 silverlings; Quix; editor-surveyor; the_conscience; metmom; RnMomof7; ...
I think i said it to you again -- Lutherans, Baptists, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Methodists etc. all believe in the tenets of faith as encapsulated in the Nicene Creed. They are Christians

the OPC does not -- it may call itself Presbyterian, but it's no more PResbyterian than "Bishop" Long's group is Southern Baptist. in fact the OPC is worse -- it's not Christian. The various Presbyterian groups like the Church of Scotland are Christian doubtless, but the OPC is non-Christian -- it just takes on the terms 'orthodox' 'presbyterian' when it is neither (as it is not Christian but follows its latter day prophets from Machen onwards) at least it uses the term 'cult' to describe itself.

What is hilarious is that this non-Christian cult with it's beliefs in a Brahminical caste-system pretends to speak for "all Protestants" and then attacks REAL Protestants (Christians) as "preaching a satanic bible"

the OrthoPresbyterian Cult, has no Scriptural rebuttal so they assault what they do not understand. It’s an old and typical pattern of people who have no foundation in the word of God, but are founded by men.
2,601 posted on 12/12/2010 12:26:58 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2521 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

“Roman Catholics, you included, have yet to tell us what the Gospel is. “

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!


2,602 posted on 12/12/2010 12:34:03 AM PST by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2599 | View Replies]

To: narses

When you’ve finished laughing, please tell us what was the good news Christ preached.

Thanks.


2,603 posted on 12/12/2010 12:37:15 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2602 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

2,604 posted on 12/12/2010 12:37:57 AM PST by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2603 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Was Mary Sinless?

If God could do this for Mary, then why not for the offspring of Eve and not have to mess around with millennia of sin and degradation?
2,605 posted on 12/12/2010 12:38:37 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2594 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; 1000 silverlings; Quix; editor-surveyor; the_conscience; metmom; RnMomof7; ...
Nice attempt by the OPC cultist to link the OPC cult to real Christians

Ronald Reagan, after 1989 was a member of the Bel-Air PCUSA, not the OPC. Bel Air Presbyterian Church is an evangelical Christian megachurch located in the Bel Air neighborhood of Los Angeles, California. The church is affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Willow Creek Association and currently averages more than 3,000 in attendance each weekend. Reagan was originally baptised in the Disciples of Christ Church

Dwight Eisenhower was again, not OPC.

And you mentioned Bob Dole -- Bob Dole says he is a Methodist -- the same group that your fellow OPC cultist accused of "preaching Satan's gospel'

Niether were / are Andrew Jackson, John Wayne, Bob Dole, Robert Louis Stevenson etc. members of the OPC cult.

the OPC pretends to speak for Protestants. That's a joke! The non-Christian OPC is a cult of 20,000 and falling and they pretend to speak for Protestants who are Christians!?!

The OPC is not Christian, just keeps a thin veneer of hyperCalvinism so it can attack Christianity and then say "oh, we just follow Calvin"
2,606 posted on 12/12/2010 12:38:52 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2527 | View Replies]

To: Grizzled Bear; metmom; RnMomof7; 1000 silverlings; Quix; editor-surveyor; boatbums

~~”I think you don’t understand the reference.”~~

I understand the reference.

Lastchance just apologized and said my understanding of the term “alter Christus” was correct...

LASTCHANCE: “But I do see you used the term correctly and I apologize for my misassumption.”

Please read the link in the following post. “Another Christ” is not a difficult concept. It’s blasphemy, but it’s not too tough to grasp its meaning.

Unless Father Baker is incorrect.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2637924/posts?page=2533#2533


2,607 posted on 12/12/2010 12:40:53 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2536 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; boatbums
worship in a solid Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian, Congregational, non-denominational church where the word of God is preached in truth and light.

Nice joke --the OPC cultists blatantlya accuse Methodists, lutherans, Arminians of preaching a satanic gospel and then put an oh so innocent look so that they can worm their way into true Christians. They follow the same sham tactics as the Mormons, pretending to be Christians, even making fake websites, all the while their Prophets keep their false cult formed by Machen running on.
2,608 posted on 12/12/2010 12:41:27 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2528 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Natural Law
dr Ec What is the good news Christ preached?

Good -- that will be your first step to rejecting the teachings of Machen in the OPC cult and coming to Christ.
2,609 posted on 12/12/2010 12:42:50 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2534 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; lastchance; Grizzled Bear; stfassisi
LC: were you trying to quote St. Francis of Assisi"

Dr E I wasn’t “trying.” I posted his idiotic musing.

Ah, true OPC teaching of hate. They espouse no gospel teaching, but the OrthoPresbyterian Cultist, has no Scriptural rebuttal so they assault what they do not understand. It’s an old and typical pattern of people who have no foundation in the word of God, but are founded by men.
2,610 posted on 12/12/2010 12:44:41 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2537 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; Dr. Eckleburg

Thank you for posting that list of many Presbyterian groups. The good doctor’s cult, the OrthoPresbo’s are not Christian and yet the OPC tries vainly to link itself to them! They like to pretend to “speak for all Presbyterians” “speak for all Protestants”, when really they only speak to their non-Christian Cult


2,611 posted on 12/12/2010 12:47:10 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2538 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Perhaps you do not understand what a “denomination” is. All Presbyterians are fundamentally alike in faith and doctrine. They all believe God’s word is their only rule of faith and practice. They all believe the orthodox creeds and confessions of Christendom. They all adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith. They all trace their Reformational roots from Scotland via John Knox as a student of John Calvin.

As such, every one of those names I gave you was/is a Presbyterian, as I am a Presbyterian. Denominations vary by region, some being more liberal and others more conservative, just like Roman Catholic churches vary. The OPC is probably the most conservative of all Presbyterians since they do not ordain women like the PCUSA does.

But thanks again for the opportunity to provide a link to a solidly Christian, Bible-believing church...

http://www.opc.org


2,612 posted on 12/12/2010 12:48:13 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2606 | View Replies]

To: metmom
What I said
1. in God’s presence, sin cannot stay, it is destroyed.
2. Jesus in the womb was still Jesus Christ, Lord and God.
3. To protect the bearer of God, she had to be made filled with grace and she had to be made free of sin — for her to be able to bear the Lord


Note -- I said protect HER, namely mary, because I pointed out that in God's presence, sin cannot stay, it is destroyed.

This is God protecting Mary because any trace of sin cannot stand in the presence of God, Jesus Christ -- so the womb surrounding Jesus had to be made full of grace and free from sin -- for the womb's sake, not for Christ.

Do you comprehend now?
2,613 posted on 12/12/2010 12:49:55 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2543 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Francis of Assisi was wrong to encourage people to pray to animals and to pray without words.

Idiotic vanity.


2,614 posted on 12/12/2010 12:49:58 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2610 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

2,615 posted on 12/12/2010 12:51:52 AM PST by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2614 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Again, you appear not to be able to answer the simple question all Christians should have a ready answer for.

What is the good news Christ preached, Cronos?

If you’d like to be able to answer that question, go to the top left of the homepage of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and read up on it.


2,616 posted on 12/12/2010 12:51:52 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2609 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Grizzled Bear; Dr. Eckleburg

The difference being that those were highlighting their opinions, not saying statemetns like “Protestants believe” etc. — which is the OPC cultist’s way of trying to make others believe the the OPC is somehow (which it isn’t) Protestant, Christian. But the OPC is not, it just shams it, down to the fake website.


2,617 posted on 12/12/2010 12:51:52 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2544 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

2,618 posted on 12/12/2010 12:54:16 AM PST by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2616 | View Replies]

To: narses; metmom
Thank you narses -- met, you may disagree with that logic, but do read the logical flow correctly, it is to protect the womb from the incredible power of God (in the presence of which no stain of sin can last) that it was made filled with grace and free from sin.

As I said, you can disagree with that, of course, that's your free will
2,619 posted on 12/12/2010 12:54:19 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2548 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

You keep referencing one thread by one person which was a continuing discussion among FRiends. I doubt you know what they were even discussing.

Yet none of that proves anything. You never post Scripture to support your fables and superstitions. Go back to the Bible and learn the truth.


2,620 posted on 12/12/2010 12:54:43 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2608 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,581-2,6002,601-2,6202,621-2,640 ... 3,401-3,413 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson